Why Sandy Hook Parents are Suing a Gunmaker
In December 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School experienced a shooting that would change the lives of families and community members forever. 26 people (six were adults, twenty children) were killed by gunman Adam Lanza, and the parents of the deceased are now fighting to sue gun distributing company Remington, who manufactured and sold the used firearm. The company argues the 2005 federal law, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protects them, because it says the gun manufacturers are granted immunity "from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of the product". Parents argue back the loophole of "negligent entrustment", which says that one party can be held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party with a dangerous instrument. Remington never came in contact with the shooter when selling, so families are pointing that to be negligent. What do you think the verdict of this lawsuit will be? Do you think the Sandy Hook families are stretching it with their accusals towards Remington, or should the gun company be held responsible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the verdict might be that Remington is not guilty of "negilent entrustment" because that loophole doesn't seem to be clearly defined. However, I don't think the Sandy Hook families' accusations are unjustified - the gun company should have met with Lanza before selling him a gun. But the real problem isn't with the company; it's with the legislation. Companies will act as they're required to by law, and the laws concerning gun control are too loose.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the judge will rule in favor of the families, because as Julia said, they don't really define a loophole. Also, Remington did not break the law in the production or marketing of the gun. I understand the families accusals towards Remington, but they should be blaming the government for poorly regulating the market of lethal weapons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia in that because this "loophole" has not been clearly defined that "negligent entrustment" would be difficult to prove guilty. I think the judge will deem Remington not guilty in this case. I agree that the flaws are not within the companies following the rules, they're within the legislation on gun control. The family's urgency to condemn companies like Remington is understandable but will not create any impactful change in gun reform.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia in that because this "loophole" has not been clearly defined that "negligent entrustment" would be difficult to prove guilty. I think the judge will deem Remington not guilty in this case. I agree that the flaws are not within the companies following the rules, they're within the legislation on gun control. The family's urgency to condemn companies like Remington is understandable but will not create any impactful change in gun reform.
ReplyDeleteI think the ruling will be in favor of Remington. I think that the company is definitely protected by The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I do not think you can blame the gun companies, as they are acting with in their rights. If the familys would like to have an effect on gun violence, they need to direct their approach towards gun control policy in their state and national government.
ReplyDeleteIt will be very unlikely that a judge will side with the families or that a gun manufacturer will be held accountable gun-related deaths. I believe there needs to be stronger legislation and more enforcement of current legislation in order to prevent people from getting guns who should not have guns. I don't think the company did anything illegal according to current laws, but those laws need to change.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the fact that Remington was technically following the legal standards, I think the court will decide in favor of them. The families trying to accuse Remington may be wrong in the sense of the law, but they do have a justified point. Certain regulations could be put in place to limit the chance of such an event reoccurring. Remington may be in the right by law, but the family makes a valid point about the need for regulations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia, in the actual written law I believe that the judge will side with Remington, but I also feel that the families blame of Remington is justified. I think in the future there should better law that makes Remington more accountable and thus reducing the risk of this terrible tragedy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia, in the actual written law I believe that the judge will side with Remington, but I also feel that the families blame of Remington is justified. I think in the future there should better law that makes Remington more accountable and thus reducing the risk of this terrible tragedy.
ReplyDelete